He's a politician, yes? You know the joke about how to tell if a poltiician is lying (he has his mouth open).

What I mean by saying "out of context" is that the quesiton of Ariel is currently a matter of debate within Israel. What Sharon just said should have been presented in the context of other Israeli poltical figures saying that the area of Ariel WOULD be given up. You can't tell from here which utterances are meant for real and which for factional consumption -- I doubt many Israelis can.

In a way you are mssing what you should be complaining about, those other areas of the West Bank about which there does not appear to be much political debate within Israel, where there appears to be agreement about keeping them.

Gush Etzion would be an example. But might I humbly suggest that before jumping all over Israel about THAT neighborhood you read up on the history of the place. For example, this area was not before '47 inhabited by Palestinians (well there was ONE Palestinian family living there as caretakers to the abandoned monestary buildings but the attackers did not distinguish them from the "Zuionist" inhabitants who were killed in the fighting from December '47 to May '48 when the last "Etzion Blok" settlement fell the day BEFORE the "Zionsits" offically declared the state of Israel).

Don't get me wrong -- you can certainly argue that history is no justification for Israel deciding to hold onto the place now. Just don't describe the current problem in terms of a false history. When discussing Gush Etzion you need to understand that history >

Sharon is going to withdraw all the settlements from Gaza although the fierce internal opposition from zionist groups. I find it perfectly reasonible to hold onto the westbank as a exchange, I hope you don't expect him to withdraw to the middle of the sea. Or perhaps you do?

... stolen your tv and your video.

If I give your tv back (after wrecking it) it is quite reasonable that I keep your video.

Oh, and by the way, I will arbitarily shoot some of your children too.

Observer

How strange that you somehow don't seem to notice the intermediate solution. The one the palestinians are asking for. The one the international community supports. The demanded in one ignored security council resolution after ignored security council resolution.

That is - Israel's withdrawal to the green line, and the establishment of two independent states each living in autonomy and security. If Israel did this, almost the whole world would be behind both states need for security, and would support the crushing of both the extremist zionists and the extremist palestinians. A few of both would go on fighting for a while, of course. With BOTH groups recognised as terrorists, eventually it could be brought to a stop. Mind you, if Israel had to give up its pretence of being the victim, it might lose its huge US subsidy (or share it with the palestinians who need it more because of Israel's destruction of their infrastructure). It's loss would put them into severe economic difficulties, but with the ingenuity and hard work of their people I am sure they would pull through.

Israel is not really in much danger on a larger scale. It has more nuclear warheads than the UK, and extensive means of delivery including submarine-launched cruise missiles. All outside international inspection, and largely denied. It's the other middle-eastern countries who need to be afraid.